THE DEPOSITION THEY HOPED YOU WOULDN’T READ
- Kali Tafari
- Jan 7
- 4 min read
How a closed-door testimony exposed the effort to bury the truth about the 2020 election—and a second set of crimes still under seal.
In December 2025, former Special Counsel Jack Smith was summoned behind closed doors to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. The stated purpose was “oversight.” The reality, laid bare in the transcript, was far more consequential: Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, his unlawful retention of classified national-security documents, and the ongoing effort to keep the full findings of both investigations hidden from the public.
This was not a deposition designed to illuminate facts. It was a deposition structured around what could not be said, what was being withheld, and who benefits from that silence.
WHAT THIS DEPOSITION WAS REALLY ABOUT
Despite repeated public claims about “DOJ weaponization,” the transcript shows that the proceeding centered on Trump’s post-election conduct—specifically whether he knowingly lied about election fraud and used those lies to try to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.
Those findings exist.
They are contained largely in Volume Two of the Special Counsel’s report.
Congress does not have that volume.
As committee members stated on the record, Trump and his co-conspirators have repeatedly sought to prevent Volume Two from becoming public, including petitioning Judge Aileen Cannon to keep it under seal—an action that, in practice, gags the investigator who wrote it and prevents Congress from accessing the conclusions of a federal criminal investigation into election subversion.
Source: Smith Deposition Transcript, pp. 13–15, 57–59
A DEPOSITION BUILT AROUND A GAG ORDER
From the outset, Smith’s attorneys made clear that the former Special Counsel was operating under strict limits imposed by the Department of Justice and the courts. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and Judge Cannon’s January 2025 order, Smith was barred from discussing non-public grand jury material or any non-public contents of Volume Two, even though he authored it.
Source: Transcript, pp. 13–15
Committee members openly acknowledged the absurdity: they were questioning the lead investigator without access to his findings, even as the Eleventh Circuit ordered Judge Cannon to revisit her sealing order by January 2, 2026—just weeks after the deposition.
Source: Transcript, pp. 12–14
The effect was predictable. Smith could be portrayed as evasive, not because he lacked answers, but because he was legally prohibited from giving them.
WHAT SMITH CONFIRMED—DESPITE THE LIMITS
Even within those constraints, Smith placed several critical facts on the record:
He denied—repeatedly and unequivocally—that his office was “weaponized” or that the Trump prosecutions were politically motivated. Source: Transcript, pp. 57–58
He testified that his office believed it had sufficient evidence to prove Trump’s crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, including conduct related to the 2020 election and the events surrounding January 6. Source: Transcript, pp. 53–54, 77–87
He confirmed there was no direction or interference from President Biden, the White House, or Attorney General Merrick Garland. Source: Transcript, pp. 84–85
He warned explicitly that a closed-door deposition creates the risk that testimony can be selectively released or mischaracterized, because the public cannot observe full context or demeanor. Source: Transcript, p. 58
These statements directly contradict the public narrative that the investigation was baseless or politically driven.
THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE—AND WHY IT MATTERS
The deposition also addressed Trump’s unlawful retention of classified national-security documents at Mar-a-Lago—conduct charged under the same statutes Trump and his allies have long claimed others should have been prosecuted for violating.
Smith summarized the indictment’s allegations:
Willful retention of national defense information
Obstruction following a grand jury subpoena
Concealment, including the movement of boxes
Potential tampering with surveillance footage
Source: Transcript, pp. 199–203
Photographs of boxes stored in unsecured locations, including a ballroom stage and a bathroom, were discussed as evidentiary proof of reckless handling and unlawful retention.
Source: Transcript, pp. 199–200
These are not technical violations. They are felony offenses involving some of the government’s most sensitive materials.
Critically, the reason Trump retained these documents—what he intended to do with them, and how they intersect with his post-presidency conduct—remains tied to material that is still under seal.
That suppression flows from the same court and the same sealing authority that has kept Volume Two of the election investigation out of public view.
THE STRATEGY IN PLAIN VIEW
Read end to end, the deposition reveals a familiar pattern:
Investigate an attempt to overturn an election
Investigate unlawful retention of classified documents
Produce findings
Seal those findings
Gag the investigator
Hold closed-door proceedings
Claim the resulting silence proves nothing happened
This is not transparency. It is delay as a political tactic.
Smith himself noted that prior special counsels—Mueller, Durham, and Hur—were permitted to testify publicly. He was not.
Source: Transcript, pp. 58–59
WHY THIS MOMENT MATTERS
This deposition will not be remembered for procedural wrangling or partisan soundbites. It will be remembered for what it represents: a coordinated effort to prevent the public from seeing the full findings of investigations into an attempt to overturn a democratic election and the unlawful retention of national-security secrets.
As of this testimony, those findings remain under seal—not because they were disproven, but because the subject of the investigations continues to fight their release.
History is rarely kind to those who confuse delay with exoneration.
And this deposition, stripped of its noise, is a record of that delay.
PRIMARY SOURCE
Deposition of Jack Smith, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, December 17, 2025 (Redacted + Errata)
Comments